I have a slight correction to TARP legislation, which was the debt for equity used in '08 for the subprime financials and is now being used for GM. All previous issued and outstanding stock shares wealth may not become completely worthless after TARP [deversify noneTheLess]; but at least all stock options issued but not already claimed are worthless at the chapter TARP Bankruptcy time. At the time of the re-IPO, at best all of the liability would be zeroed by the not-for-profit federal government; but still it seems unfair for zero equity to be on the books at the time of the re-IPO [an even better debt/equity ratio is hoped for]. Therfore the 2012 addition to TARP is to charge a ventureCapitalist 12% interest rate, taken out of the re-IPO, and the remaining equity after the 12% interest expense/principle is then written in the name of the previous shareHolders to the TARP Bankruptcy as if a reverse stock split.

As far as the federal deficit/debt goes, the best strategy is the B Clinton push me/pull you, attack both sides of the equation, raise tax revenue and cut expenditures. As future military missions have the UN or NATO to become more important in declaring the mission, I agree that the Army Air Force and the Marine Navy should have expenditures cut. However I see the silver lineing in the black cloud to be aviation. I can already obain boot on the ground in Syria, but what the Arab League is lacking is Air Superiority, the first child of which is Air to Ground--these USA perfect nitch [after WWI, the mission was to keep the Reserve Officer Training Corps in place, and enlisted boots on the ground can always be added in a short run].

Hilary did an admirable job on the foreign policy and tackled the contentious problems around the world. To my mind the problem of Kashmir is an extremely important issue and has been for a long time and three wars have been ignited over it. Yet no body care for the people of Kashmir who want to be free like the Arab spring has done. The atrocities committed by the occupied forces are never a headline. This again is due to Islamophobia I feel.

Nice job, Lexington. I liked the way she rapped your knuckles for asking too many questions about "getting the Middle East process done." If there is an Obama second term, does Lexington have any ideas on who might replace her?

Not to mention her additional headache now that our BRILLIANT president said (on a hot mic) to (outgoing) President Medvedev, "after my election I have more flexibility" to "deal" with missile defense.

At a glance, her remarks sound inspirational and captivating. But if you try to browse deeper between words, she is not sincere and honest. There are serious crimes against humanity in Bahrain right now and all are done under the "blessing" of US. How can she claim that she promote human rights. How can an Islam bigots in Saudi who deny women's rights befriended by US. And she labelled "a freeze" for Israel slow settlement in The West Bank that she called "more than one can expect from Netanyahu"? The culprit of the Middle East mess is what the US called its commitment to Israel security. That simply translates a bias for Israeli favor. The US will always keep injustice in its foreign policy as long as it fail to detach itself from Israel interest

Now I remember why the Neo-cons vilified Mrs. Clinton so ferociously during her 1993 attempt at health care reform: she's a bright and capable leader, threatening to the patriarchy. Now there is little hint of the former animosity. But anyone who imagines that the GOP would have been less truculent in a Hillary Clinton presidency does not understand the right-wing ideological fatwa of of partisanship over progress.

Great interview with Mrs Clinton. Thank you.
But the really important point is that we all really have to bow down to Truly Yours, for being the all-wise all-seeing sage who was able to reprimand us brain dead epsilons about the "right wing ideological fatwa of partisanship over progress" which we have supposedly created.
I guess those of us few cretins who don't view Mr. Obama and his administration as the greatest creation in the history of the universe had better keep our heads down.
Bit of a bummer, as I was actually hoping to vote in the next election, but at least I now know that I am completely unworthy to even hold an opinion, let alone express it.
Thank you Mr. or Ms. Truly for saving me from myself.
David Armstrong.

Good that Hilary dodged the bullet of heading up the World Bank, the "bank for civil servants and failed bankers". She should run a "Global Womens Bank" that could funnel billions of dollars into micro-loans, entrepreneurship, educational and healthcare institutions that would offer serious care in the Third World. By sidestepping all the multilateral and bilateral efforts not directed to "poverty elimination" she would leave a mark. Women are the workhorses and the only hope for Africa. If she focused her enormous talents, energy, skills and intelligence on that for the rest of her career, she would go down as someone who made a massive impact on improving the world, not just representing the interests of a big state. Robert S. Stewart http://www.africa-infrastructure-consortium.com , Juba South Sudan.

One of the best interviews and discussions in a long while. Hillary Clinton has been a strong, very capable stateswoman for this Republic, No one of her calibre and broad experience in statecraft is on the horizon today, other than Barack Obama himself. He, of course, is very likely to be serving a second term over the four years starting in 2013. This article clearly shows the demands in physical and intellectual energy the post of Secretary of State for this country places on its occupant. We can hope that Mrs. Clinton has the resilience as well as the enthusiasm to tackle yet another vital job of high responsibility for the nation.

I agree that it is hard to think of an adequate replacement for Mrs. Clinton, not even, as you correspondent obsequiously puts it, "Barack Obama himself!"
However, I would hate to see Mr. Obama take over that difficult job.
I believe his immense skills are much better deployed in the way he spends them now.
1. Being a fabulous orator.
2. Railing against successful people, especially millionaires, billionaires, trillionaires and whichever other enemies of the people he can dream up.
3. Continuing to assiduously foster class warfare, something America always lacked until Mr. Obama entered the White House.
When his time in office finally ends, Mr.Obama can serve his country best by returning to his previous job as a non-voting, non-participating nonentity in the Illinois senate, thereby sparing his country any further damage from his leadership.
Sincerely,
David Armstrong-

nd David Armstrong: You are entitled to your opinion, however discourteous. The discussion is about Mrs. Clinton and the challenges of her position as Secretary of State. Your statement of extreme disapproval of our incumbent President is merely partisan political opinion, and irrelevant to the discussion. But relevant to your comment is the obvious, regrettable fact that the GOP offers us not one credible candidate for President, and nothing resembling a platform to run on.

Mrs. Clinton does not worth to keep her in the payroll.
Obama Known as the "food stamps" US President has bankrupted the US with 15 trillon deficit.
Another 4 years of Obama means another 15 trillon national deficit. Can you suggest how the US will pay its debt?

Voters are shopping their jobs away at places like Walmart and now are voting their jobs away by supporting Hillary Clinton. Here is the real timeline behind free trade:

1956 - U.S. government starts moving factories outside the United States.

1970 - 120 factories moved from the United States to Mexico.

1980 - 400 maquiladora factories in Mexico.

1980s - While Hillary Clinton was on the Board of Directors of Walmart, about 1,000 U.S. factories were moved to Mexico.

1992 - 2,000 maquiladora factories in Mexico.

1994 - NAFTA is passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton; number of factories moved to Mexico doubles to more than 4,000; reports tell of "dirty manufacturing" in Mexico causing health problems and birth defects.

1995 - President Clinton rushes $20 billion to save the Mexican economy. Then he uses other means to rush even more money to Mexico. ( President asked Congress for $40 billion but they gave him just $20 billion instead- he said he would use other means to get the extra money to bail out the Mexican peso )

1996 - Hillary says NAFTA is good for everyone.

2000 - Hillary, at an economic forum in Switzerland, praises business efforts in supporting NAFTA.

None of the above stopped the flood of Mexican workers to the United States seeking economic survival.

Now, after all of that, Hillary says free trade has to be tweaked at bit.

One suggestion for Hillary. The English language is now the most commonly used language for negotiation. Yet it has evolved from a very imperialist history. Whether British or American, the Pax Anglo-Sassonica has been about native English-speaking speakers having a disproportionate amount of the material power -- although by no means in all situations: for example, in the Eastern Mediterranean and in Pakistan. Nonetheless, that has been mostly the case.

In such circumstances, the principal speaking English has an obligation to be personally present in a non-pontificatorial way. This is not easy. But it can be done with authentic I-statements, by which I mean "I have 'X emotion' now" statements, where 'X emotion' is limited to an honestly selected noun (like 'irritation') or an honestly selected noun phrase ('extreme concern').

Such statements are called IHXENs, IHXEN being an acronym for "I have 'X emotion' now". They are always safe to make whenever they are honestly chosen for their veracity is then obvious to others yet the substantive revelation is all but zero, and consequently they introduce just that increment of trust and connection that can transform a tricky 'moment of crisis' into a 'moment of shared truth'. By contrast the alternative and much more common English I-statement -- "I am 'X adjectival phrase'" is fraught with potentially mistaken interpretations.

For more on this, feel free to review the one-page summary to be found at:

As an European,on top of it a German merchant with international connections and exquisite knowledge of history and american foreign policy and what the Pentagon did and does,I also must say,good approach of Mrs. Clinton,but we shall see what comes out after she has gone,when the dust has settled.
One of the hopes is that the US become a state/nation/big player again which can be loved or at least respected,like it was until entering Vietnam.What we here in Germany do not understand,are the crazy involvements like in the Iraque for the second time under George W.Bush and the war in Afghanistan,just to name the two most crazy recent senseless activities.

I am not surprised to learn from Mrs. Clinton that the US trades more with ASEAN than with China. After all, Indonesia is the world's most densely populated nation. Perhaps some statistics need to be revised. It may interest some readers that China also trades more with ASEAN than with us.

Dunnhaupt, I looked up US-ASEAN and US-China trade figures because, unlike yourself, I was surprised.

Perhaps Hillary meant ASEAN plus other Pacific/Far East nations outside of ASEAN (e.g. Japan and Korea) when she said "But when you look at the future of the Pacific we do more trade with those nations than we do with China" ?

I'm very grateful she has had the State department, but how much better to have had her energy, temperance, and nerve in the top job. I know several of my friends who voted for McCain's experience would have gladly voted for Hillary instead.

President Obama got my vote, and I am certainly thankful for the change he represents from the blundering redneck numbskullery that preceded him. However, his lack of experience and foreign policy insight could have sunk us even further if Mrs Clinton had not set aside her own very potent political ambitions to serve as his most able cabinet member. She has consistently produced outstanding work while taking as little of the spotlight as possible, deliberately, for the good of the country. President Obama must be very thankful for her, and very grateful to her, as so many of us are. If she had been elected in 2008, eight years as vice president might have prepared Mr. Obama better for his current job-- imagine sixteen straight years of thoughtful leadership post-Bush, instead of the four we are all too likely to get.

Thank you Hodgicus but I do think we fall too easily for the propaganda by Obama's political opponents when they talk about experience.How much experience did Hillary have to have enabled her to perform so well as Secretary of State? In these positions, you need a good head and a good heart.Obama and Hillary have an abundance of both.This is why each in his or her own way continue to trump their critics and drive the Republicans nuts.

If things had only been slightly different. For instance if she has had a couple more percentage points in a few state primaries, what position would she have appointed him to. My position is that she was the better qualified person. Few people would have done as good a job as she has in her current position as she has. I'm simply giving credit where credit is due.

Dear Doctor Bash - Perhaps it will be a year or two to really get the measure of her efforts as Secretary
of State. As to the Russia and China damaged relationship, surely that is a two way street in both cases. As for Assad and the Syrian problem perhaps letting Europe take the lead was sensible considering how close it is to the Israel/Palestine problem.